The Ubuntu Experiment

[Steve Lamb]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Certainly not.  But as I said, that means more time and effort is involved,
> but it's _still_ only the corruption of the user data that matters.

    And yet of the many times I've had to clean up infected machines guess how
many had all user data lost.  0.

    Guess how many had partial user data loss.  0

    Guess how many had a single critical user file screwed up.  0

    Yet most of those cases the user in question had all their critical
information backed up.  I guess my years of hounding about backups paid off.
They weren't needed, but if they were they were there to be used.

    Still sucked to be me trying to clean up an compromised machine in such a
way so that they could continue using their perfectly fine user data.  Would
have been easier to start from scratch but doing so would have eliminated the
possibility of using said, perfectly fine, user data.

    IE, you're barkin' up the wrong tree for so many reasons it ain't funny.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20080807/ce6f8e6e/attachment.sig>